DOCSLIB.ORG

Agencies Finalize New Structure for Resolution Planning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agencies Finalize New Structure for Resolution Planning ALERT MEMORANDUM October 18, 2019 Agencies Finalize New Structure for Resolution Planning: More Focused & Less Frequent — The Federal Reserve and the FDIC approved a final resolution planning rule (the “Final Rule”) significantly revising the original rule adopted in 2011.1 The Final Rule revamps the 2011 requirements by aligning the timing and certain requirements for resolution planning with the filer’s categorization under the Federal Reserve’s October 10th final tailoring rule. Most significantly, the Final Rule allows all filers to submit more targeted or reduced resolution plans, rather than full plans, in their next submission, generally streamlines content requirements for many filers, and creates new waiver and related procedures that could permit further tailoring of requirements based on the potential systemic significance of different filers. The Final Rule largely adopts the April proposal, but provides important clarifications and procedural improvements. The most significant changes from the proposal are 1) the shift from full to targeted plans for the next submissions and 2) new deadlines and procedures to request waivers or to de-identify critical operations. First, the Agencies confirmed that all firms in Categories I, II, and III will submit targeted plans, rather than full plans, by July 1, 2021.2 Category IV firms must submit reduced plans by July 1, 2022. Second, while the Final Rule did not specify additional substantive tailoring of resolution plan content, the Final Rule clarified the process for seeking waivers of certain content elements and/or de-identification of critical operations. These requests must be filed 18 months before the next due date of the next full resolution plan, and if no decision to grant the requests is provided by 12 months before that due date, the request will be deemed denied. In response to commenters, the Agencies also specified that, in general, all feedback or guidance, as well as any requirement to provide an update or additional submission, would be provided 12 months before the next due date. 1 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Resolution Plans Required (Oct. 10, 2019) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule implements Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and does not apply to FDIC-insured banks. Together the Federal Reserve and the FDIC will be referred to as the “Agencies”. 2 The Category I U.S. G-SIBs are Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo. The thirteen firms identified by the Agencies as Category II and III filers are Barclays, Capital One, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Mizuho, MUFG, Northern Trust, PNC Financial, Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion, UBS and U.S. Bancorp. 1 ALERT MEMORANDUM Key Takeaways • The Final Rule is intended to align with the Federal Reserve’s final tailoring rule, also adopted on October 10th.3 This Final Rule adopts most of the substantive revisions as proposed on April 8, 2019 (the “Proposed Rule”) and implements changes required by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (“EGRRCPA”). For a complete summary of the Proposed Rule, please review our April 11, 2019 alert memo. • In substance, the Final Rule declined to make material changes to the substantive resolution planning requirements included in the Proposed Rule. As in the Proposed Rule, the only material tailoring between Categories I, II, and III lies in the Biennial filing deadlines for Category I U.S. global systemically important banks (“U.S. G-SIBs”) and the Triennial filing deadlines for all others. The Agencies clearly are leaving further tailoring of the substantive requirements for resolution plans to the waiver process and the separate de- identification process for critical operations. • Compared to current requirements, and consistent with the Proposed Rule, the Final Rule considerably reduces the resolution planning requirements for all current filers, eliminates the requirements for all U.S. filers with total consolidated assets below $250 billion and virtually eliminates the requirements for all other filers except U.S. G-SIBs, and a limited number of foreign banking organizations (“FBOs”) and U.S. regional banking organizations. • The Final Rule establishes the four classifications of resolution plan filers—Categories I, II, III and IV—based on asset size and defined indicia of potential risk, while establishing three types of resolution plans: Full Plans, Targeted Plans and Reduced Plans. • The Final Rule requires the following filing deadlines based on an organization’s categorization: o Category I: The eight U.S. G-SIBs will be required to submit alternating Targeted Plans and Full Plans every two years, beginning with a Targeted Plan on July 1, 2021 and then a Full Plan on July 1, 2023. o Categories II and III: The 13 U.S. banking organizations and FBOs within these categories will be required to submit alternating Targeted Plans and Full Plans every three years, beginning with a Targeted Plan on July 1, 2021. The first Full Plan will be due July 1, 2024. o Category IV: The 53 FBOs with greater than $250 billion in global consolidated assets not subject to Categories II & III will be required to submit Reduced Plans every three years, beginning July 1, 2022. • In the interim, four FBOs with shortcomings identified in their 2018 plans will submit information in July 2020 regarding remediation of such shortcomings. Northern Trust Corporation will submit an update in January 2020 regarding projects undertaken to address a shortcoming identified in its 2015 plan. • The Agencies affirmed industry comments, committing that future guidance will be subject to notice and comment, except in circumstances beyond the control of the Agencies.4 The Agencies further provided that all such guidance will be finalized 12 months prior to the next applicable resolution plan filing deadline.5 3 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Prudential Standards for Large Bank Holding Companies, Savings and Loan Holding Companies, and Foreign Banking Organizations (October 10, 2019). Available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/boardmeetings/files/tailoring-rule-fr-notice-20191010a2.pdf. 4 Final Rule at 41-42. 5 Id. 2 ALERT MEMORANDUM The Final Rule elements and of the requirement to adopt a methodology for assessing potential critical operations. Accordingly, The following discussion is meant to highlight important the Agencies established the following streamlined departures from the Proposed Rule. procedure: See our Appendix for a table reflecting the composition - Agencies must jointly issue a waiver, otherwise of each filing group and their respective filing cycles, the waiver request is denied. requirements and submission timelines. - The waiver must be requested at least 18 months Submission Dates Finalized; Targeted Plans Due Next prior to the next Full Plan filing deadline. - The Agencies will jointly grant a waiver request Notably, the Final Rule declared that Category I, II and in writing on a date prior to 12 months before the III firms will file Targeted Plans July 1, 2021, rather than next Full Plan filing deadline, otherwise such Full Plans as suggested in the Proposed Rule. The next requests are deemed to be denied. filing cycle will proceed as follows: - The Agencies retained broad discretion to grant - Category I: Targeted Plans due July 1, 2021; Full waiver requests.8 Plans due July 1, 2023. Resolution Plan Content - Category II and III: Targeted Plans due July 1, 2021; The Final Rule adopts the proposed three types of Full Plans due July 1, 2024. resolution plans: Full Plans, Targeted Plans and Reduced Plans. Within this structure, the Agencies did - Category IV: Reduced Plans due July 1, 2022 and not materially change the baseline Full Plan July 1, 2025. requirements, while only general guidance was provided Future Guidance Subject to Notice & Comment for the content of Targeted Plans. The Final Rule adopted the proposed requirements for Targeted Plans, The preamble to the Final Rule commits to submitting including a strategic analysis and other defined “core future guidance to notice and comment rulemaking elements” focused more on capital, liquidity, and the plan procedures and notes that the Agencies “will strive” to for any recapitalization, as well as responses to any provide final general guidance at least one year prior to material changes, feedback, and guidance. However, the its proposed application to a subsequent filing deadline.6 Final Rule provides very little guidance on how these Commenters had suggested that the Agencies codify requirements are to be met.9 Significantly, the Targeted existing guidance into the final rule, but the Agencies Plans must include a full strategic analysis. Presumably, declined, stating that such codification is unnecessary guidance will be provided at least a year before July 1, “[b]ecause general guidance sets forth non-binding 2021. 7 expectations as opposed to rule-based requirements[.]” Reduced Plans focus almost exclusively on material A rather interesting observation given past experience. changes to the company and resultant changes to the strategic analysis. Aligning Timelines of Plan Content and Critical Operations Waiver Requests Despite receiving comments recommending further tailoring, the Agencies declined to establish further The Agencies responded to comments seeking a more tailoring between the content requirements of the largest consistent process for waivers of resolution plan content 6 Final Rule at 41-42. Final Rule at 67; § ____.3(d); § ____.3(a)(2); § ____.3(c)(2); 7 Id. at 41. and § ____.4(d)(6). 8 The described procedures do not apply to firm de- 9 Final Rule, § ____.6(b) (cross-referencing “Core Elements” identification notifications, as described in this memo. See defined at § ____.2). 3 ALERT MEMORANDUM and most complex Category I firms and the firms identify or rescind identifications of critical represented in Categories II and III.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MHP and DMC-ODS Beneficiary Policy Number: 3224 Grievance and Appeal Process
    SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Behavioral Health Services POLICIES AND PROCEDURE MANUAL Subject: MHP and DMC-ODS Beneficiary Policy Number: 3224 Grievance and Appeal Process 9 Date Effective: 4/26/2021 Pages: 7 Prior Version: 12/01/2020 Responsible for Updating: Quality Improvement Staff Approval: ___________________________ __________________________ Behavioral Health Director Date BACKGROUND: Santa Cruz County Behavioral Health Services [Mental Health Plan (MHP) and Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC-ODS)] is committed to respecting and protecting a person’s right to express service dissatisfaction, and to reviewing each notification as a means to support quality behavioral health care. We adhere to federal and state requirements for processing beneficiary grievances and appeals. SCOPE: Providers who render MHP and/or DMC-ODS Network services shall adhere to this policy to ensure beneficiaries are informed of their grievance and appeal rights and have access to methods for filing a grievance and appeal with County Quality Improvement. PURPOSES: To provide beneficiaries and providers with clear, viable procedures for the resolution of grievances and appeals. POLICY: Santa Cruz County Behavioral Health Services shall provide all Medi-Cal beneficiaries with information, in both English and Spanish, regarding grievance and appeal procedures. Beneficiaries shall have access to these grievance and appeal procedures in accordance with state and federal mandates, as described in this policy. Information regarding the process for filing grievances and appeals is available as brochure forms, and also in the Mental Health Plan (MHP) Beneficiary Handbook for Specialty Mental Health Services and the Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC-ODS) Beneficiary Handbook. 3224: Grievance and Appeal Process (MHP & DMC) 1 DEFINITIONS: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Drb Final Resolution
    COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATION SECTION 105 DISPUTE REVIEW BOARD Brannan Sand and Gravel Co. v. Colorado Department of Transportation DRB FINAL RESOLUTION BACKGROUND Colorado Project No. STA 0404-044 15821R, “Removing Asphalt Mat on West Colfax Avenue and Replacing with a new Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay”, was awarded to Brannan Sand and Gravel Company on August 11, 2008, for $1,089,047.93. The contract incorporated all Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Standard Specifications and Project Special Conditions, including, Standard Specification 109.06: Standard Specification 109.06 Partial Payments. CDOT will make partial payments to the Contractor once each month as the work progresses, when the Contractor is performing satisfactorily under the Contract. Payments will be based upon progress estimates prepared by the Engineer, of the value of work performed, materials placed in accordance with the Contract, and the value of the materials on hand in accordance with the Contract. Revision of Section 109. In September 2006, CDOT, CCA (Colorado Contractors Associations), and CAPA (Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association) formed a joint Task Force at the request of CAPA to evaluate the need for an asphalt cement cost adjustment specification that would be similar to the Fuel Cost Adjustment that was currently being used by CDOT. The result of the Task Force effort was the revision of Standard Specification 109.06 to include the Asphalt Cement Cost Adjustments Subsection. Subsection 109.06, Revision of Section 109, “Asphalt Cement Cost Adjustment When Asphalt Cement is Included in the Bid Price for HMA”, states: _____________________________________________________________ DRB Final Resolution Brannan Sand & Gravel v.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacy Support Person Registration of Respondent
    BEFORE THE IOWA BOARD OF PHARMACY Re: Case No. 2011-172 Pharmacy Support Person Registration of STATEMENT OF CHARGES TYLERANTHONY SMITH Registration No. 792, Respondent COMES NOW, the Complainant, Lloyd K. Jessen, and states: 1. He is the Executive Director ofthe Iowa Board ofPharmacy and files this Statement ofCharges solely in his official capacity. 2. The Board has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Iowa Code Chapters 147,155A and 272C (2011). 3. The Board issued Tyler Anthony Smith (hereinafter, "Respondent") pharmacy support person registration number 792, subject to the laws of the State ofIowa and the rules ofthe Board. Respondent's registration was last renewed on July 12, 2010, and will expire on June 30, 2012. 4. At all times material to this Statement ofCharges, Respondent was employed as a pharmacy support person at Hy-Vee Pharmacy, Perry, Iowa. A. CHARGES COUNT I- UNLAWFUL POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code §§ 124.403, i55A.6B(s) and 155A.21 (2011), and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.i(4)(h), with possession and distribution of a prescription drugs - specifically, controlled substances - for other than lawful purposes. COUNT II - VIOLATING LAWS RELATED TO PHARMACY Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code § 155A.6B(5) (2011) and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.i(4)(j) with violating state laws related to the practice of pharmacy; specifically, laws relating to possession and distribution ofcontrolled substances found at Iowa Code §§ 124.403,155A.21 and 155A.23 (2011). COUNT III - INABILITY TO PRACTICE DUE TO CHEMICAL ABUSE Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code § i55A.6B(s) (2011), and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.1(4X111) with the inability to practice as a pharmacy support person, with reasonable skill and safety, due to chemical abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of VANCOUVER RESOLUTION July 7, 2008
    CITY OF VANCOUVER RESOLUTION July 7, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. fl-&ha A RESOLUTION relating to selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Columbia River Crossing project (CRC), adauthorizing action by the City of Vancouver's delegates to the C-TRAN Board and Regional Transportation Council Board, guided by the principles herein, in support of a regional LPA. WHEREAS, Interstate 5 is a conidor of national significance that serves the entire west coast of the United States, as well as international commerce with Canada, Mexico, and all of the countries of the Pacific Rim that access US west coast sea ports; and WHEREAS, Interstate 5 between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington experiences some of the worst congestion along the entire length of the Interstate 5 corridor; and WHEREAS, the 1-5 Interstate Bridge is one of only two Columbia River crossings between Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon and approximately 138,000 people rely on crossing the 1-5 Bridge daily by car, transit, bicycle and on foot; and WHEREAS, the Vancouver-Portland Metropolitan Area is expected to grow by one million new residents by the year 2030; and WHEREAS, the existing 1-5 bridges ate old and do not meet current seismic hazard avoidance standards; and WHEREAS, the 1-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Final Strategic Plan recommended congestion and mobility improvements within the 1-5 Bridge Influence Area in 2002; and WHEREAS, the Governors of Oregon and Washington initiated the Columbia River Crossing Project (CRC) and appointed a 39
    [Show full text]
  • When Can I Confirm an Arbitration Award?
    When Can I Confirm an Arbitration Award? June 01, 2021 Timeline to Confirm Arbitration Award BST Ohio Corp. v. Wolgang, 2021-Ohio-1785 In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. The Bullet Point: In this matter, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that trial courts need not wait three months before confirming an arbitration award. In making this determination, the Court analyzed the interplay of the timing requirements of R.C. 2711.09 and 2711.13. Under R.C. 2711.09, a party may file an application to confirm an arbitration award with a court of common pleas within one year after the award is issued. Thereafter, the court must grant an order and issue judgment confirming said award unless it has been vacated, modified, or corrected pursuant to R.C. 2711.10 and 2711.11. As compared to said one-year limit to confirm, R.C. 2711.13 mandates that a party seeking to alter the results of arbitration must move to vacate, modify, or correct the award within three months of the award being issued. In this case, the plaintiff applied to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court (the “trial court”) to confirm the arbitration award the same day it was issued. The following day, the defendant filed a petition to vacate or correct the award in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Proceedings of the Meetings of the Board Of
    OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PORTAGE COUNTY, WISCONSIN January 18, 2005 February 15, 2005 March 15, 2005 April 19, 2005 May 17, 2005 June 29, 2005 July 19, 2005 August 16,2005 September 21,2005 October 18, 2005 November 8, 2005 December 20, 2005 O. Philip Idsvoog, Chair Richard Purcell, First Vice-Chair Dwight Stevens, Second Vice-Chair Roger Wrycza, County Clerk ATTACHED IS THE PORTAGE COUNTY BOARD PROCEEDINGS FOR 2005 WHICH INCLUDE MINUTES AND RESOLUTIONS ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE LISTED FOR RESOLUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION TITLE JANUARY 18, 2005 77-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, CRUEGER PROPERTY 78-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, TURNER PROPERTY 79-2004-2006 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NEW POSITION REQUEST FOR 2005-NON TAX LEVY FUNDED-PUBLIC HEALTH PLANNER (ADDITIONAL 20 HOURS/WEEK) 80-2004-2006 DIRECT LEGISLATION REFERENDUM ON CREATING THE OFFICE OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE 81-2004-2006 ADVISORY REFERENDUM QUESTIONS DEALING WITH FULL STATE FUNDING FOR MANDATED STATE PROGRAMS REQUESTED BY WISCONSIN COUNTIES ASSOCIATION 82-2004-2006 SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW AMBULANCE SERVICE AMENDED AGREEMENT ISSUES 83-2004-2006 MANAGEMENT REVIEW PROCESS TO IDENTIFY THE FUTURE DIRECTION TECHNICAL FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF PORTAGE COUNTY AMENDMENT GOVERNMENT 84-2004-2006 FINAL RESOLUTION FEBRUARY 15, 2005 85-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, WANTA PROPERTY 86-2004-2006 AUTHORIZING, APPROVING AND RATIFYING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDING GROUND
    [Show full text]
  • Final Resolution and Order Vs
    COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO PUERTO RICO ENERGY COMMISSION MARC BEJARANO CASE NO.: CEPR-RV-2017-0004 PETITIONER SUBJECT: FinAl Resolution And Order vs. AUTORIDAD DE ENERGÍA ELÉCTRICA DE PUERTO RICO RESPONDENT FINAL RESOLUTION AND ORDER I. Brief ProcedurAl BAckground On February 27, 2017, Marc Bejarano (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Bejarano”) filed a petition for bill review before the Puerto Energy Commission (“Commission”) pursuAnt to Article 6.27 of Act 57-20141 and Regulation 8863.2 Mr. Bejarano’s petition relates to a past due charge included in A bill dated October 28, 2016 issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) to Ms. Wendy CArroll PArker. On MArch 17, 2017, PREPA AppeAred before the Commission And requested an extension until April 10, 2017 to reply to Mr. BejArAno’s petition. The Commission grAnted PREPA’s request on MArch 20, 2017. On April 4, 2017, Mr. BejArAno filed A Motion requesting thAt the heAring in this case be conducted in the English language. The Commission grAnted the Petitioner’s request on April 5, 2017, pursuant to Section 1.10 of Regulation 8543.3 On April 10, 2017, PREPA filed A motion requesting the dismissAl of Mr. BejArAno’s petition. On April 19, 2017, the Commission held A hearing to Address: (1) whether it has jurisdiction to consider the dispute of the past due charges contested by the Petitioner; (2) whether there Are grounds to consider the present cAse As A complAint rAther thAn A petition for bill review, given PREPA having allegedly transferred the past due balance to the 1 The Puerto Rico Energy TrAnsformAtion And RELIEF Act, As Amended.
    [Show full text]
  • 1- Board Order No. 065 Final Resolution of the Board Of
    BOARD ORDER NO. 065 FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TAXICAB COMMISSIONERS CITY OF LOS ANGELES WHEREAS, the Board, as part of each taxicab franchise ordinance, may adopt vehicle standards and requirements for clean fuel/clean air taxicab vehicle policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 26, 2010, approved the renewal of the existing taxicab franchise agreements to at least December 31, 2015, and that such renewal approval included a “green taxi” provision whereby 80% of each Los Angeles taxicab fleet (not including Wheelchair Accessible vehicle exemptions) must be included as “green” vehicles producing lower smog pollution and Green House Gas emissions by the end of 2015; and WHEREAS, the Board approved Board Order No. 062 on December 16, 2010, establishing the City of Los Angeles Taxicab Greening Program describing “green” vehicle standards and deployment requirements during the taxicab franchising period in order to aide in the reduction of pollutants emitted from taxicab transportation vehicles for both smog pollution and Green House Gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the potential for a temporary taxicab vehicle substitution program whereby vehicles removed from active service (outage) due to unexpected major repairs or replacement issues may be temporarily replaced with a pre-approved substitute green taxicab, lessening the economic effect to vehicle owners and drivers during vehicle outage periods, as well as providing more consistent service capability to the public; and WHEREAS, the Board of Taxicab Commissioners approved Tentative Resolution, Board Order No. 065 on June 16, 2011, and such Tentative Resolution was published on June 23, 2011, for a five-day public review period; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that each taxicab operator (franchisee) shall have the option (if they so desire), to establish an authorized “green” taxicab substitution vehicle pool, for use as temporary taxicab fleet vehicle substitutes during vehicle outage periods of both “green” and other types of taxicabs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Omega Man Or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2020 The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law Spencer Weber Waller Loyola University Chicago, School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons Recommended Citation Spencer Weber Waller, The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law, 52 CONN. L. REV. 123 (2020). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 52 APRIL 2020 NUMBER 1 Article The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law SPENCER WEBER WALLER There is a classic sciencefiction novel andfilm that presenta metaphorfor the isolation of United States antitrust law in the current global context. Richard Mathiesson 's 1954 classic science fiction novel, I am Legend, and the later 1971 film released under the name of The Omega Man starring Charleton Heston, both deal with the fate of Robert Neville, a survivor of a world-wide pandemic who believes he is the last man on Earth. While I am Legend and The Omega Man are obviously works offantasy, it nonetheless has resonancefor contemporaryantitrust debate and discourse. United States antitrust law and policy diverges significantly from the rest of the global antitrust community in important areas of scope, philosophy, doctrine, procedure, remedies, and institutions.Much of this divergence in world view is the product of history and path dependence that is largely unique to the United States experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgender Woman 'Raped 2,000 Times' in All-Male Prison
    A transgender woman was 'raped 2,000 times' in all-male prison Transgender woman 'raped 2,000 times' in all-male prison 'It was hell on earth, it was as if I died and this was my punishment' Will Worley@willrworley Saturday 17 August 2019 09:16 A transgender woman has spoken of the "hell on earth" she suffered after being raped and abused more than 2,000 times in an all-male prison. The woman, known only by her pseudonym, Mary, was imprisoned for four years after stealing a car. She said the abuse began as soon as she entered Brisbane’s notorious Boggo Road Gaol and that her experience was so horrific that she would “rather die than go to prison ever again”. “You are basically set upon with conversations about being protected in return for sex,” Mary told news.com.au. “They are either trying to manipulate you or threaten you into some sort of sexual contact and then, once you perform the requested threat of sex, you are then an easy target as others want their share of sex with you, which is more like rape than consensual sex. “It makes you feel sick but you have no way of defending yourself.” Mary was transferred a number of times, but said Boggo Road was the most violent - and where she suffered the most abuse. After a failed escape, Mary was designated as ‘high-risk’, meaning she had to serve her sentence as a maximum security prisoner alongside the most violent inmates. “I was flogged and bashed to the point where I knew I had to do it in order to survive, but survival was basically for other prisoners’ pleasure,” she said.
    [Show full text]
  • 26 CFR Ch. I (4–1–20 Edition)
    § 301.6511(a)–1 26 CFR Ch. I (4–1–20 Edition) otherwise expire with respect to Corporation (5) Computation of 60-day period when P’s 2007 return), a court proceeding is last day of assessment period falls on a brought to enforce the designated summons weekend or holiday. For purposes of issued to Corporation P. On June 6, 2011, the paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, in court orders Corporation P to comply with the designated summons. Corporation P does determining whether a designated sum- not appeal the court’s order. On September 6, mons has been issued at least 60 days 2011, agents for Corporation P deliver mate- before the date on which the period of rial that they state are the records requested limitations on assessment prescribed in by the designated summons. On October 13, section 6501 expires, the provisions of 2011, a final resolution to Corporation P’s re- section 7503 apply when the last day of sponse to the designated summons occurs the assessment period falls on a Satur- when it is determined that Corporation P day, Sunday, or legal holiday. has fully complied with the court’s order. (e) Effective/applicability date. This The suspension period applicable with re- spect to the designated summons issued to section is applicable on July 31, 2009. Corporation P consists of the judicial en- [T.D. 9455, 74 FR 38097, July 31, 2009] forcement period (March 3, 2011, through Oc- tober 13, 2011) and an additional 120-day pe- LIMITATIONS ON CREDIT OR REFUND riod under section 6503(j)(1)(B), because the court required Corporation P to comply with § 301.6511(a)–1 Period of limitation on the designated summons.
    [Show full text]
  • 18 June 14 Regular Meeting
    Regular Meeting June 14, 2018 Northport-East Northport Union Free School District Regular Meeting - William J. Brosnan School (Thursday, June 14, 2018) Generated by Beth M Nystrom on Friday, June 15, 2018 Members present Donna McNaughton, Allison C Noonan, Andrew Rapiejko, David Stein, Tammie Topel Members absent David Badanes, Lori McCue Also present Mr. Robert Banzer, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Irene McLaughlin, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Mr. Matthew Nelson, Assistant Superintendent for Student Services, Technology and Assessment Dr. Dana Boshnack, Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning Public Attendance: Approximately 120 people 1. CALL TO ORDER – President Rapiejko called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. IF NECESSARY, THE CHAIR MAY ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION - Note: It is anticipated that the Board will meet in public at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Conference Room to act upon a resolution, upon majority vote, to immediately convene into Executive Session to discuss matters pertaining to current litigation and matters pertaining to the employment history of particular persons. Action: 2.01 Motion to convene into Executive Session to discuss matters pertaining to the employment history of particular persons, and matters pertaining to contract negotiations. Motion by David Stein, second by Donna McNaughton. Final Resolution: Motion passes Yes: Donna McNaughton, Allison C Noonan, Andrew Rapiejko, David Stein, Tammie Topel At 7:09 p.m. the Board reconvened in public session in the cafeteria at the William J. Brosnan School. 3. Mr. Rapiejko led those present in the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE; and 4. Pointed out the EMERGENCY EXITS 5.
    [Show full text]